Wikipedia:Simple talk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


dream market[change source]

This page is possible advertising, can someone look into it? Derpdart56 (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Link for the lazy. I looked it over. I see nothing that would seem like advertising. If this is considered advertising, it's a pretty awful job. Half of the article is about a breach of security and how many accounts are now under control by the Dutch police. If I were wanting to buy drugs for some reason, I certainly wouldn't be using a site that had a lot of users' accounts found out by police. ~Junedude433talk 19:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
When it was created, there was a link. Sorry, It was a misnomer, it was vandalism. Derpdart56 (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Wait, search Dream Market/ and hit enter. That's the right page. Derpdart56 (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Found it. I agree that this page looks like advertising. It should be deleted. In the future, please link to the article you are talking about. ~Junedude433talk 20:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The Simple English Wikipedia has reached over 150,000 articles[change source]

Title says it all. We've now reached more than 150,000 articles on the Simple English Wikipedia! Thank you to everyone for all of your work! ~Junedude433talk 20:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

What amazing :) As a bonus fun fact, when the simple english wikipedia was first created, the english wikipedia had 150k articles. So now we've "caught up" :) Computer Fizz (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

IP's[change source]

seems like a barrage of vandalism has become to sew. why? IP's need to be watched or blocked. Baozon90 (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Asian Month 2019[change source]

Hello everyone. Wikipedia Asian Month 2019 is going to start soon in November. It's an online edit-a-thon where participants create pages on Asian topics. The editors whose articles meet the requirements get a postcard(s) from Asia. The requirements and other information can be found in the linked page, on the Q&A, and on the local page. I will update the page soon and sign us up if anyone is interested in participating this year. Also, please let me know if someone else wants to be an organizer this year. Thank you and happy editing.--BRP ever 00:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Letters in other scripts and languages[change source]

The arrival of dozens of pages like Gimel leads me to ask about policy. Do we want to accept such pages? Should we delete them? Personally, I don't see sense in having a page on a single letter or symbol which is part of a larger whole.

I think it best to redirect all letters or symbols to such a more substantial page covering the whole script. Anyway, editors wanting to have them deleted will have to wait a moment until we have a consensus. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I will note that a number of other languages have such pages, for each letter in a script. For example, in the case of the page you linked above, there are 16 linked languages through wikidata. These include German, French, and other major languages. Also, it is not linked to that, but enwiki does have a page as well. en:Gimel. It appears quite substantial. See also other examples like en:Dalet. I learn towards following the other languages and allowing the possibility of well developed pages in the future. With stubs to start. Especially for historically important languages like Hebrew or Greek, etc. Desertborn (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I would also like to add that pages like He (letter) and Aleph have existed since 2008. Aleph, to name one, has more page views per month than many of our pages. Desertborn (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Of course we do, the notability is easy to establish. Anything that meets WP:N can have an article. -DJSasso (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I oppose deleting them, but i'm neutral between a redirect and a full-blown article. Computer Fizz (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Hebrew letters, as with letters in most scripts, are easily notable. Vermont (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I do see the need for separate pages in cases like the Greek Pi, where a perfectly good case can be made for a separate page. Where a case can be made, that's good. Otherwise I would say that a script is notable, but letters have no meaning except as members of the script. I don't know why 'He' is mentioned: nothing is said about it. Without content it amounts to saying "X exists". It's been like that for over ten years. What do readers think when they arrive at such a page? Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Review of Purplebackpack89's community ban[change source]

Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has requested for a review of their community ban. Before weighing in, please take some time to (re-)familiarise yourself with:

--Chenzw  Talk  03:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Statements by PBP89[change source]

I'm not going to grovel, but I think this should be lifted. It's been eight years. That's insane. The block was ham-handed IDONTLIKE it from the beginning and there's no reason for it to continue. Also, if there really were serious problems, I'd have been banned from other projects, which I have not; not anywhere close. The fact that I haven't been blocked in over two years anywhere else, with thousands of edits since then, is all the evidence I need that this block is unnecessary.
I will try to be better in my interactions with other users. I think there's evidence that I have been better in other projects. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
If you're seeking specific areas that I'm going to change, I seem to recall one of the things that caused some problems here was a contentious GA or VGA nomination. I've sworn off GA, VGA and FA nominations here, English or anywhere. (Note: that doesn't mean I don't improve articles, it means I don't engage in the GA, VGA or FA process). Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC) (Again, copy-and-paste-able)

Discussion[change source]

  • They're presently a trusted editor with some permissions on the English Wikipedia. I support an unban, as it's been so long and if there are more issues we can simply rediscuss and reinstate the ban. Vermont (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Most of those who commented in the fiest discussion are no longer around. As one of the few who were, I'd support lifing the ban. The editor has grown older. I currerently see no reason not to unban. --Eptalon (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I remember the drama involved in the ban discussions, although I didn't take part in them at the time. I would be happy to see the ban lifted, BUT this should be on a ONE STRIKE basis. If the original banning behaviour is repeated, then an immediate indefinite ban should be put back in place. Happy for people to get involved and help, don't have the time or the patience for drama.--Peterdownunder (talk) 04:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Reading his unban proposal, I still see roots of what got him banned, and that it seems to be the same unban reason as always, but I also think we can't fully know if he's changed until we see it in practice. So I agree that, with some other people above, that he should be unbanned but if his actions are repeated within a short enough timeframe for him to be banned again, which I think could satisfy everyone since if the problems stop then there'd be no need (like ROPE). Computer Fizz (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I still Oppose. Computer fizz sums it up his unblock request still shows what got him banned in the first place and had all his previous request rejected. He still doesn't acknowledge why he was banned which is a requirement of having the ban lifted. He still seems to think there wasn't an issue and does not take responsibility for his actions. --DJSasso (talk) 11:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why it is so hard to take responsibility and accept mistakes. This is the same kind of reasoning as always, what's so different this time?--BRP ever 14:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose unban, on the following grounds:
  1. The current unblock request alludes to some form of admin abuse that led to the user's original block and implies that the original block was made in error/should never have been made in the first place. I will, on procedural grounds, oppose any unblock request that attempts to misrepresent the original circumstances behind the block, be it through statements, suggestions, omissions etc. made either directly or indirectly, and will continue to oppose to future unblocks/unbans until such misrepresentations are withdrawn and/or corrected.
  2. Community standards differ across projects; just because other Wikimedia wikis have not decided to ban a user does not mean said user is not problematic on this local wiki and (thus) warrants a ban from this wiki.
  3. A search of the ANI archives on EN wiki reveals that several other established editors on EN (as well as uninvolved sysops who close discussions on noticeboards) have also shared some concerns on the user's adherence to community standards. Why there hasn't been a ban yet is not the concern of this wiki, and something left to the discretion of the EN community/ArbCom.
  4. As also have been highlighted by some people above, no acknowledgement of the behaviour leading to the ban has been shown (also related: point 1 above). I have also spoken about this in previous ban reviews: [1] [2] [3]
--Chenzw  Talk  16:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • We've always taken the view that an honest change of heart and attitude would be relevant to lifting a long-term ban, but I see no evidence of this happening. Actually he's still convinced he was in the right and has no intention of changing. So we should continue the indefinite ban. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm quite aware some select policies and community standards do not translate across projects. However, I do believe this policy would apply to this instance. Therefore, I support unban with a ONESTRIKE threshold to reinstate an editing block while the community reconsiders the ban, in the event the editor does not make good faith edits or becomes abusive towards other editors as in the past. Should the ONESTRIKE be breached and the community ban be reinstated, I propose it should be extensive in length. Operator873talkconnect 16:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I would say a onestrike unban is a reasonable position. If the user acts inappropriately, we can always ban again. If they become toxic to other users or something, then ban them again. If they just want to actually make some edits, why not? @Purplebackpack89: if you happen to get unbanned, I would suggest just keeping your head down and sticking to general edits. ~Junedude433talk 20:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggest that we continue the indefinite ban echoing the concerns above that Purplebackpack89 has never accepted the reasons for the original ban and even in this latest request continues to be argumentative. --Gotanda (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Uhh.. Help[change source]

Any admins: Please look into TAPCLAPgamesfansince2018. He is attacking a user that banned him on en wiki, Cullen328. There's an ongoing edit war between Zaxxon0 and this user. Thank you. DO NOT trust any block requests by him on the admin's noticeboard! He's trying to get Zaxxon blocked. Derpdart56 (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Managed at AN. Vermont (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Lawrence, Kansas PVGA[change source]

I'd hate to be a bother or impatient, and I know that things don't move that fast here, but it has been a month since any comments have been posted about this proposed VGA of Lawrence, Kansas, and I feel like it's slipping through the cracks. We don't get many VGA proposals often (and we have very few VGAs already), and I would really appreciate if any other editors could take a look at it just so that it doesn't get stuck for too long. Thank you to anyone that looks at it! ~Junedude433talk 20:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Can I block xXGamer BoiXx?[change source]

He is a griefer and only vandalises articles. Derpdart56 (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Only admins can block users, so no. I know it's confusing as on basically every other website blocking is peer-to-peer, but on wikipedia only admins can block users. You can request they be blocked at WP:VIP. Computer Fizz (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Anyone specializing in religion, I need an article improved.[change source]

Hello! This article, which is a fairly recent article, is a hoax. Can anyone take the en Wiki article and simplify it? I am not good at traditional editing because I focus more on reverting vandals. Thanks in advance, Derpdart56 (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I have deleted the article because it was vandalism. A new article can be created if desired. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh okay. Derpdart56 (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Feedback wanted on Desktop Improvements project[change source]

07:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I've got another article that needs deleting[change source]

This article appears to be advertising and isn't notable. Can someone delete it please? Derpdart56 (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:QD and also WP:RFD. After you have considered those, then please feel free to follow the process that seems most appropriate for this case. Desertborn (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
RFD would seem to make the most sense. The article is too well-formatted for it to be a candidate for quick deletion. That being said, it is a poorly-written article with sources that aren't great. It definitely needs to be improved, but not sure if it's really worth deleting that quickly. ~Junedude433talk 19:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Autoconfirm[change source]

Hello,

I have researched the requirements of becoming an autoconfirmed user and have found that generally you need only to make a minimum of 10 edits and have a registered account for more than 4 days. I have made the necessary edits, now how will I know when I cam autoconfirmed? Don't I have to wait until I am autoconformed in order to create my own Wiki page?

Thank you all --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawson Bell (talkcontribs) 19:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Lawson Bell: You should be able to see this at Special:ActiveUsers. Go to that page, enter your username, press enter, and you should see yourself in the list with whatever rights you have.
I don't know if you have to be autoconfirmed to create your user page, but there's an easy way to find out: try creating it!
Aside from that, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by putting four tildes (~~~~) at the end. If you have any questions about how things work here (some things are different from English Wikipedia), feel free to ask. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)